tv US House of Representatives Special Orders CSPAN March 16, 2016 7:00pm-9:01pm EDT
have good credit have ended up paying highest interest rates as a result of the approach oaf the cfpb is that possible people with good credit who would have had a lower rate have seen an increase. mr. cordray: what i know our informations found is there were many people with good credit who belonged to different minority groups being charged were fair loans. mr. fitzpatrick: people who have good credit, did they pay hire rates? mr. cordray: i have different views about that. mr. fitzpatrick: but it's possible. you would acknowledge it is possible. mr. fitzpatrick: it depends in part of what the response -- mr. fitzpatrick: is it likely that is what has happened? mr. cordray: i wouldn't say that. mr. fitzpatrick: probably hasn't happened? mr. cordray: i wouldn't say. it depends on the individual responses of vipped lenders.
mr. fitzpatrick: i had very small community banks that i visited with yesterday and they are from bucks county, pennsylvania and has to do with the subject of overdraft fees. there are a lot of us who have concerns that the rulemaking that your bureau is limiting smool community banks to provide real choices and customers could be customers and small business owners. and they would be owners that uld seek out riskier nonbank regulations. in regard to the overdraft fees and you are looking and a rule is being formulated on this issue, is that correct? mr. cordray: yes. mr. fitzpatrick: when is that expected to be released? mr. cordray: the proposed rule, which will be subject to considerable comment will be
released this spring. mr. fitzpatrick: this particular bank that i met with me wanted me to -- and suggested whether you have any willingness to identify data and something you talked to mr. westmoreland so banks and financial institutions can draw their own conclusions, is that something you would be willing to do? mr. cordray: what purpose? mr. fitzpatrick: the data to formulate the rule on overdraft fees. mr. cordray: on small dollar loans or overdraft? i thought you were talking about on overdraft. we aren't releasing a proposal this spring. mr. fitzpatrick: you would be able to release the data that forms the basis of your conclusion? mr. cordray: we released white
papers. mr. fitzpatrick: are you willing to release more information. h.r. 3131, are you familiar with that bill. what the bill would do is require the bureau when you make a report or recommendation and issue a rule that you release the underlying data which many times isn't released so banks can form their own conclusions. are you willing to release more of the data? mr. cordray: our orientation and our inclination is to release as much data publicly as we can because we want people to do their own conclusions. but some of the information we get is trade secret protected. although one institution might want to know more about it, they might feel affected or agreed or
disadvantaged. mr. fitzpatrick: if it doesn't fall within your exceptions and i would like to hear about those ceptions, are you willing to release the data so banks and financial institutions and the public can draw their own conclusions? >> mr. cordray: it may have been obtained maybe we had to buy it from some provider in which there were negotiations that we weren't able to negotiate away. and it would be compromised. mr. fitzpatrick: would you shall willing to lay out all the regulations on transparency that you are going to give us today. can you give it to us today. mr. cordray: i verbally laid it out. there may be others.
mr. fitzpatrick: if there are others, please provide it in prying. mr. cordray: i would be able to rief your staff. mr. ellsworth: your agency has been under attack since the first day. and any call for the litigation -- and lishon, a secret group called protect america's consumers and i have no idea who are running these ads or paying for them. we have seen some addresses that lead us to conclude they might be very, very powerful interests but we haven't received a
confirmation yet and i was angry at the deception in this ad and being quoted out of context that i made my own youtube video. so not all opponents of the work everyone is not an opponent and i congratulate the green shirts who are standing with the cfpb today and standing up for consumer justice and i think that's really excellent. what i planning on running my thing. this is my video setting the record straight that i have all times support the cfpb contrary to the protect consumers' ad implied. and you may have heard in a public speech that was given by
our chairman yesterday on his vision on financial markets. i would like to ask you some questions about some ideas that were raised. for example, does cfpb rules require documents three days community r house of bankers? mr. cordray: i wouldn't describe them that way. mr. ellsworth: do you think consumer contracts is a huberies of man? mr. cordray: tche are trying to implement authority given to us by congress. mr. ellsworth: when we limit to service members or prohibit for charging african-americans, is that creating a complexity of government control?
trying to : they are protect. but it was congressional judgment. mr. ellsworth: strange place to be against service members, any way. when they require buyers of manufactured homes that the loans they are being offered are more expensive compared to other options is that an example of an unaccountable bureaucracy ragging us to a european-style bureaucracy mr. cordray: consumers can make choices and know what they want to know at the time. and empowers consumers and promotes liberty. mr. ellsworth: we don't agree on the role of the cfpb. $11 billion turned back are pretty good.
on the screen is a monthly report. nd many experts decry the they note overcharges and hidden charges and cost millions and wealth to ordinary americans and yet, one of the quotes in the chairman's public speech was quoting that the only true freedom is economic freedom. would you say ensuring a fair economic marketplace ensures economic freedom. do people have more wealth now than some of these costly schemes -- are stopped? mr. cordray: enforcing the law fairly promotes economic freedom nd helps the free market work.
>> the time of the gentleman has expired. i recognize the gentleman from florida. mr. ross: you and i have discussed this before and we were in the florida legislature and have experience dealing with pay-day loans and we came out with a bill that i think has done a great deal of good to eliminate the predatory and bad actors and make sure that the duration has 7-31 days. and processing fees and cooling off period of 24 hours.
under our regulatory scheme reduce the use of online loans which we don't want to see our consumers go to. that would eliminate any regulatory control. but reduce it by 82%. would you agree that florida is the gold stand when it comes to regulation of payday loans mr. cordray: i would not. mr. ross: is there another state better? mr. cordray: due want me to answer? these loans are still being made above the 300% interest. mr. ross: you are going to eliminate the demand thinking and the demand. but let's take your statistics up there. we have your monthly report on payday loans.
complaint. we have marriage. what i suggest. if you are not -- what is going to be a policy that is forth coming in spring. there is going to be a report this spring after sunday, can you give us a little trailer and tell us what it is going to say and eliminate the regulatory state environment so you have a company kind of assisting you. are you familiar with it? mr. cordray: i have no idea what you are talking about. trying to take over this market. mr. ross: are you familiar with the center for responsible lending? mr. cordray: yes. mr. ross: and trying to allow their opinion or influence in promulgating the rule. are you familiar with their subsidiary? mr. cordray: i'm sorry.
what i'm not understanding -- mr. ross: have you heard of them? mr. cordray: yes. mr. ross: they are a zeer. have you had any relationships, y discussions, any emails or communications? mr. cordray: i have many communications. mr. ross: this is your opportunity. directions, communications. yes or no. yes or no. mr. cordray: this claim -- mr. ross: this is. mr. ross: any communications with self help? mr. cordray: what's the question? mr. ross: have you had any communications? mr. cordray: i don't know whether i have or haven't. mr. ross: you don't know whether
you have had any communications. mr. cordray: any communication. mr. ross: give knee many 16 seconds or less in the rule you are going to promulgate with regard to short-term loans. mr. cordray: nothing should be taken to the bank but take a lot of our framework we provided which is we are going to seek to eliminate predatory practices that embroil consumers with consistent and prolonged roll over. mr. hensarling: the gentleman mr. pittenger. mr. pittenger: you have touted the transparency of your agency, is that correct?
you and 12 of our directors emails for official business, is that not correct? mr. cordray: that is very limited. how does the american public have any confidence in the records, the information that's captured recorded if you are using private email. mr. cordray, do you approve of what secretary clinton did? mr. cordray: i'm not familiar with that. r. pittenger: you are not? is this proper accountability? do you feel the public is
getting the information they deserve to have. mr. cordray: there are policies to make sure government work is being captured. mr. pittenger: will you turn over to the committee all these private emails. mr. cordray: i don't know what you are talking. mr. pittenger: we would like to ave a full undering. regarding your structure in the fpb you are the single director, do you believe it would be more prudent and more acceptable to have perhaps a five-member bipartisan commission? mr. cordray: i have seen different approaches to different organizations. mr. pittenger: do you think you could gain answers from individuals that would join with
you. mr. cordray: i do every day. mr. pittenger: let's talk about your time in ohio. and you served in the general assembly. you feel like the public could be best served if that committee chair just issued his decision of the full support of those who are on the committee and aware of all those issues? he didn't act alone
when i'm invited and never ucked or dodged. mr. pittenger: when we ask for information is delay after delay on so many occasions. mr. cordray: we vrm always answered your letters if the answer is not sufficient, we will continue to do that. if there is anything that we haven't sufficiently followed up. mr. pittenger: $600 million or more. mr. cordray: there is accountability. congress set the terms. congress set the terms. mr. hensarling: the time of the gentleman has expired. i recognize ms. wagner. never ducked or dodged. answered all letters. let's have a conversation.
back in december, asking for documents asking for a variety of issues, retaliation, auto lending and others and despite with ying the cfpb is ompliance and alls answers our letters, you allville failed, failed once again to respond adequately to this subpoena. the committee sent this letter right here, i have a copy of it, a bit of the order on how all of you are complying with the subpoena with the such terms that you using. will you commit to providing this information to our committee here right now? mr. cordray: we continue to work
mr. cordray: i would like to know specifics. >> you have failed to comply? you haven't responded. mr. cordray: we have responded. we produced another 20,000 pages of documents. tell me how it's inadequate. >> will you submit us. mr. cordray: will you. mrs. wagner: what we call ducking and dodging. last year i asked a question about who gave the authorization to renovate the headquarters of your agencies and i haven't forgotten the response you gave to me and i quote, and why does it matter to you.
it matters to me because that is government ex pen ti turf $2115 million. last year, you said that treasury made the decision, however the committee sent a letter asking about it and said that you the cfpb made the decision, both of you can't be right. the last time i asked you to look into this, who authorized the renovation. mr. cordray: this has been misstated and garbled. i never said why would you look into an expenditure of funds. you are entitled to look into. mrs. wagner: why does it matter to you. the missouri second congresses at district. mr. cordray: who authorized it? i got more questions.
who authorized. mr. cordray: as i said numerous times, i reafffirmed that decision. mrs. wagner: reclaiming my time, not answering that question. elizabeth as was a special ploger and she published a post. so let me ask you was it elizabeth ordered who authorized the renovation? mr. cordray: that's what you ant me to get me to say. that's never been true and not accurate and corrected the record on that numerous times. i have rea firmed that decision. mrs. wagner: you gave the
authorization for that? r. cordray: i was. mrs. wagner: reclaiming my time and especially you don't on own it and the makes me question how federal, questioned the reserve approved the budget and whether the fed is even able to veto. the answer to both of those questions was no. so -- i'm not finished. how does this work. you simply send an invoice and as long it doesn't hit the caps it is approved automatically. how does this happen mr. cordray: we are carrying out the law that congress enacted. you and your colleagues enacted
and we would hope that you would be accountable to the source of your funding. mr. cordray: several things you described are inaccurate. mr. barr: and let's talk about the arbitration of rulemaking and arbitration study that we asked about in that letter go, your response did not answer the questions about the inefficiencies in the data. did the study that arbitration can be faster than a class-action lawsuit. mr. cordray: it would be depend. mr. barr: was there any data that arbitration can be a faster resolution? was there any data that arbitration can be less expensive for a consumer? mr. cordray: some cases it would go to court it would be less expensive. mr. barr: was there any data that could be more effective to
resolve dispute. mr. cordray: i don't know -- mr. barr: you have said you have a dutya to enforce the law. enacted by statute. here's what the law says. it must be in the and consistent with the study. your study shows that arbitration can sometimes and in many cases be in the best interest of the consumer in terms of a faster resolution a better result for the consumer. i would encourage the bureau to not move forward with a rule that is not consistent with the benefits of arbitration. in preparing the study. did it coordinate with the american association of justice. did the bureau in preparing the study coordinate snr mr. cordray: i don't know. mr. barr: the reason i ask is the bureau cites a study by a
professor that annualizes there is final shal agreements. do you know how the study was funded? because it was funded by the american association for justice, that is a conflict of interest. you are using data from a -- mr. cordray: we took it in from all stakeholders and funded by industry. i don't hear you -- mr. hensarling: time of the gentleman has expired. ms. waters: a study from esponsible -- negotiations african-americans and latinos. mr. hensarling: all members will have and we forwarded to the
witness for his response. and i would ask you mr. director to respond promptly. all members will have legislative days to submit extraneous material into the record. this hearing stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by tional captioning institute]
mr. earnest: obviously, the president has been hard at work in making the decision about the best person to fill the vacancy in the supreme court. as we discussed, the president consulted a wide array of organizations on both sides of the aisle. every senate office was contacted by the white house to consult about potential nominees. the president had multiple conversations with democrats and
republicans on the senate judiciary committee about this decision and only recently that the president made a final decision on this. but it reflected a lot of work and extensive consultation among legal experts and members of the senate on both sides of the aisle. 'm not aware of any thing on his part to accept this responsibility, and i don't the anybody based upon public comments he gave in the rose garden. reporter: are you seeing a breakthrough? is there a plan b? mr. earnest: there is a constitutional responsibility that members have to consider the president's nominee to consider on the supreme court. and we have been making it for
weeks now and i think the case that we have the senate should fulfill their responsibility is only strengthened and now it's clear how seriously the president considered. he considered a wide range of candidates and he chose the person that he believes is the best person in america. there is a reason that the last time that chief judge garland faced a vote that he got the support of a majority of democrats and the majority of republicans in that vote. that was 19 years ago. but in that 19 years, he has laid -- blazed a trail of a judge who understands that his chief responsibility is is to interpret the law and not a political agenda and the senate should fulfill its
responsibilities and it is not appropriate for anybody in the united states senate to suggest that they are going to use politics as an excuse to not do their job. reporter: some are not enchanted with the president's choice, that it was designed to piece the republicans. can you respond to their concern? mr. earnest: the president's choice was designed to find the very best person for the job and the president feels confident that that is what he has done. when you look at chief judge arland's credentials, they are unquestioned. he has a demonstrated ability to public service. and how early in his career, the chief judge took a pay cut so he
could work as a public prosecutor and he worked here making neighborhoods in this city safer and he demonstrated a commitment to using his extensive legal training to promote justice and that was true when he oversaw the prosecution of the oklahoma city bombings. he is proud of that. the president is proud and that commitment to public service and that commitment to not using his seat on the bench to advance a political agenda but to interpret the law that has earned him bipartisan support in the past and he earns bipartisan
today. >> the 21-year-old u.v.a. student sentenced to 15 years, what is the administrations action? mr. earnest: there is no greater priority for this administration than the welfare and safety of u.s. citizens abroad. but we understand and we seen that a north korean court convicted the student. he was reportedly sentenced to 15 years of hard labor, the allegations of which this individual was imprisoned would not give rise to imwritten in the united states. despite claims that they are not used for political purposes, it is clear that the government
uses these citizens as pawns to pursue a political agenda. and the department of state recommends against all travel and there is additional information and encourage to go to the web site if they are considering travel to north korea. now he has gone through the criminal process, we strongly urge to grant him special release.nd imimmediate reporter: the president in choosing judge garland -- [ inaudible]
why not take that opportunity. mr. earnest: jeff, i'm not away ware tharl age played any role. maybe there are some people that it would have. but the president was looking for the very best person of the job. the haven't choosed someone who has prosecutor temper meant and the public service too do this job. and people should understand, justice ginsburg was 60 years old. when justice powell was older an than chief garland is today. older than he is
recent supreme court nominees but entirely within the range of individuals who have the sufficient legal experience to demonstrate that they can serve with distincton on the united states supreme court. the other thing you can point out, he has more federal judicial experience than any other supreme court nominee in american history. that kind of experience and that kind of track record only strengthens the case we can make that the president has chosen the best person. reporter: his qualifications are empeckable, is the president not considering someone who can take advantage of the opening on the court considering the average life span of a white male?
mr. earnest: as is true who is considered, chief judge garland underwent a physical and he is somebody who is in good health and could serve for an extended period of time on the supreme court. but i will tell you, there are some presidents who previously sought to use the appointment to the supreme court to burnish their legacy and we could weigh the pro-s and cons. the legacy is focusing on getting the best person of the job. starting g three, with sotomayor and kagan and the president's legacy, i think it is going go to stand up.
reporter: is that ex plight -- explicitly? mr. earnest: not necessarily, every potential candidate brought along his or her unique set of credentials and experiences and the president chose the person that he believes is pe the best person of the job. based on his long track record as a judge on the d.c. soirkt, it is very difficult to argue that somehow the president didn't do that. reporter: have you seen any evidence that russia and president putin are putting more pressure on assad on withdrawing
their troops? mr. earnest: we have seen evidence of the russian military following through on the public declaration that president putin made to begin withdrawing some of their military from syria. as i noted in yesterday's briefing, i do not anticipate that we will be able to draw conclusions about this impact ll have on president assad's posture. and try to bring the syrian government into talks with the wide array of opposition groups and i previously obet the way the russian military has supported the assad regime and helped him shore up his grip on
power removed a little bit of the incentive to negotiate in good faith and toward the kind of political transition that is long overdue in syria. at this pint point, it is too early to say there is a dramatic change, but we intend to work closely with the russians and other international parties including the united nations and other countries that are allies of the united states to try to push sides together and lead to a transition that is long overdue. there is no military situation and why these talks are so important. reporter: if republicans don't
confirm judge garland, is there any possibility that the president would withdraw his name and we have heard from senator hatch they might be open to considering him after the election? what is your early reaction to the hold on this until after the bad? on or so mr. earnest: there is no good reason to wait until the lame duck for the senate to fulfill their duty to the constitution and the american people. the president has put forward a nominee a nominee that is qualified. his credentials are unquestionable. and dating back to the last 0, 40 years, the average time that a supreme court nominee has had
to wait for confirmation in the united states senate is 67 days. and that's why we believe there is a.m. will time for the senate do their job, by following roughlyly that time line, the senate could take action in the orm of a fair hearing and an up-or-down vote and what we would like to see is see that process completed and allow chief judge garland serve on the supreme court when the new supreme court term begins in october. stalling his nomination and preventing him from serving on the supreme court at the beginning of the next term would be obstruction on a scale that is unprecedented in the last 40
years or so. it has been more than four decades that we have seen it have an impact on two supreme court terms. as leader mcconnell wrote on the day after the midterm elections 2014, he vowed to use his authority to get congress moving again. we would welcome him following through on that promise and function as the constitution and the american people expect. [inaudible question] reporter: your calculation that judge garland is predicated on the best nominee. if a democratic nominee, garland is going to be your guy.
it might have been a completely calculation if you are going to control the white house. i'm trying to get an answer. the president is like, you want to act now and saying you aren't going to act now. a scenario ertain or your position is not -- snr mr. earnest: there is no good reasons that for the senate to wait for the lame duck. the only reason is he politics. nobody who thinks that our partisan political debate in this country should be extend extended to inclood the supreme court. the framers designed the supreme court to be influenced as much as possible from that political
debate. nobody is suggesting that politics should be extracted from it. olitics should not prevent the senate and the consequences are significant. having the process being broken down would be politics into the supreme court and that would be bad for the court. and i'm the not the only one who thinks us. and who just today wote wrote an op ed urging the republicans to give him a vote. we agree. john. reporter: does this nomination un -- --
[indiscernible] mr. earnest: i can't see why the president would do that. there is no reason it should take that long. the senate has the responsibility to act and should only take a couple of months. reporter: the president isn't going to pull the nomination. until a lame duck. mr. earnest: the president has put forward the best person in america and the president is going to stand by that nominee and make a forceful case that they should fulfill their responsibility to give them a full hearing. the president is standing strong behind the nominee. reporter: the first choice? mr. earnest: absolutely.
absolutely. reporter: and he has as a prosecutor two very high profile cases sought the death pen alingts. merrick garland doesn't consider ruel and unusual punishment? mr. earnest: in a confirmation hearing and there is a long -- reporter: the death penalty, the court has -- mr. earnest: i'm not going to get into the conversations they had leading up to the president's conversations. the questions were focused round judge -- chief judge garland's approach to the judge. it is thinking about an derstanding of the law and
there was not a -- not as if the president had a purpose list of to button items that he used quiz potential nominees. knowing that that's -- tharp interpreting the law based on the specifics of the case. reporter: he is a harvart law grad and the president has nominated a yale law grad and harvad grad, all justice are either harvad or yale. harvard ave spent at or yale law. someone to be nominated that idn't go to harvard or yale? mr. earnest: that is possible. reporter: that is a chance?
mr. earnest: i'm not going to get into the process. the president carefully considered nominees that did not o to ivy league law schools. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> ideal was to regroup. what this house was a regrouping as i said, stage, and it wasn't the sort of place where you are going to find them engaging in demresk activities, if you will. it was the sort of place where they will be planning their next move. >> what happens in the 1958 campaign is, you know, wall ace
does friday to reach this racial moderate and tries to campaign for the working class and progressive improvement and gets he support of the naacm. but unfortunately he loses to john pat are son. wallace, all he wants to be is government and was upset by this loss and considered it a failing and so when people asked him what the takeaway from the 1958 campaign is, he says, i tried to talk about progressive improvement and talked about good roads and good schools and no one would listen. en i started talking about segregation. >> saturday at noon earn.
and announcer: the c-span cities to her, working with cities across the country. tonight on c-span, president obama names his nominee to fill the vacant supreme court seat. we open the phone lines to get your thoughts, and then senate reaction to the president's nomination. and later, a news conference with federal reserve chair janet yellen. today president obama named merrick garland as his supreme court nominee. judge garland currently serves as chief judge of the u.s. court of appeals d.c. circuit. was appointed by president bill clinton. he is 63 years old and a graduate of harvard law school, and he clerked for supreme court justice william brennan. mitch mcconnell has said the next president should get to
fill the zipper in court vacancy, and the senate will not consider president obama's nominee. after the president announcement, he responded on twitter saying potus made his supreme court nominee without the intent of seeing and confirms it but to politicize it for purposes of the election. we will have more from senator mcconnell in a while. now, here is the president announcement from earlier today at the white house. it is about a half-hour. president obama: good morning, everybody please have a seat. of the many powers and possibilities that the constitution vests in the presidency, few are more consequential than appointing a
supreme court justice. particularly one to secede -- succeed justice antonin scalia, one of the most important jurists of our time. the men and women to sit on the court or the final arbiters of american law. they safeguard our rights. they ensure that our system is one of laws and not men. they are charged with the essential task of applying the polls put to paper or than two centuries ago to some of the most challenging questions of our time. so this is not a responsibility that i take lightly. the decision that requires me to set aside short-term expediency and there are politics so as to maintain faith with our founders and perhaps more importantly with future generations. and that is why over the past
several weeks, i have done my best to set up a rigorous and comprehensive process. i have sought the advice of republican and democratic members of congress. we have reached out to every member of the senate judiciary committee, to constitutional scholars, to advocacy groups and bar associations representing an array of interests from all across the spectrum. and today, after completing this exhaustive process, i have made my decision. i have selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of america's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty integrity, , even-handedness, and excellence. these qualities and his long commitment to public service have earned him the respect and admiration of leaders from both sides of the aisle. he will ultimately bring that same character to bear on the supreme court, an institution in
which he is uniquely prepared to serve immediately. today, i'm nominating chief judge america brian garland -- garland to join the supreme court. [applause] president obama: now, in law enforcement circles and in the legal community at large, judge garland needs no introduction, but i would like to take a minute to introduce merrick to the american people whom he so ably serves. he was born and raised in the land of lincoln, in my hometown of chicago, and my home state of illinois. his mother volunteered in the community. his father ran a small business out of their home. inheriting that work ethic,
merrick became valedictorian of public high school -- his public high school. he earned a scholarship to harvard where he put himself through and graduated summa cum laude and put himself through law school working as a tutor, stocking shoes in a shoe store and what is a painful moment for any young man, selling his comic book selection. [laughter] president obama: been there. [applause] [applause] [laughter] merrick graduated from harvard law and the early years of his career bears the mark of excellence. he clerked for two of president eisenhower's judicial appointees, judge henry friendly and then for supreme court justice william brennan. following his clerkships he , joined a highly regarded law firm with a practice focused on litigation and pro bono representation of disadvantaged
americans. within four years, he earned a partnership, the dream of most lawyers. but in 1989, just months after that achievement, merrick made a highly unusual career decision. he walked away from a comfortable and lucrative law practice to return to public service. merrick accepted a low-level job as a federal prosecutor in president george h w bush's administration and took a 50% pay cut. traded in the elegant office for a windowless closet that smelled of stale cigarette smoke. this was a time when crime here in washington had reached epidemic proportions, and he wants to help, and he quickly made a name for himself going after corrupt politicians and violent criminals. his sterling record as a prosecutor led him to the justice department where he oversaw some of the most significant prosecutions in the
1990's, including overseeing every aspect of the federal response to the oklahoma city bombing. in the aftermath of that act of terror, when 168 people, many of them small children, were murdered, merrick had one evening to say good-bye to his own young daughters and boarded a plane to oklahoma city. and he would remain there for weeks. -- four weeks. and worked side by side with first responders, rescue workers, local and federal law enforcement. he led the investigation and supervised the prosecution that brought timothy mcveigh to justice. but perhaps most important is the way he did it. throughout the process, merrick took pains to do everything by the book. when people offered to turn over evidence voluntarily, he refused, taking the harder route of obtaining the proper
subpoenas instead because merrick would take no chances that someone who murdered innocent americans might go free on a technicality. merrick also made a concerted effort to reach out to the victims and their families, updating them frequently on the case's progress. everywhere he went, he carried with him in his briefcase the program from the memorial service with each of the victims' names inside, a constant reminder of why he had to succeed. judge garland referred to his work on the oklahoma city case as, and i quote, "the most important thing i have ever done in my life." and through it all, he never lost touch with that community that he served. it is no surprise then that soon after his work in oklahoma city, merrick was nominated to what's often called the second highest
court in the land, the d.c. circuit court. during that process, during that confirmation process, he earned overwhelming bipartisan praise from senators and legal experts alike. republican senator orrin hatch, who was then chairman of the senate judiciary committee, supported his nomination. back then he said, "in all honesty, i would like to see one person come to this floor, and say one reason why merrick garland doesn't deserve this position." he accused fellow senate republicans, trying to obstruct the qualification playing , politics with judges. and he has since then that judge garland would be a consensus nominee for the supreme court who would be very well supported by all sides and there would be no question that merrick would be confirmed with bipartisan support.
ultimately, merrick was confirmed to the d.c. circuit. the second highest court in the land with votes from a majority of democrats and a majority of republicans. three years ago, he was elevated to chief judge. and in his 19 years on the d.c. circuit, judge garland has brought his trademark diligence, compassion, and unwavering regard for the rule of law to his work. a circuit court known for a strong-minded judges, judge garland has built consensus as a thoughtful, fair-minded judge who follows the law. he has shown a rare ability to bring together odd couples, assemble unlikely coalitions, persuade colleagues with wide ranging judicial philosophies to sign on to his opinions. and this record on the bench
speaks, i believe, to judge garland's fundamental temperament, his insistence that all views deserve a respectful hearing. his habit, to borrow a phrase from former justice john paul stephens, of understanding before disagreeing. and then disagreeing without being disagreeable. and speaks to his ability to persuade, to respond to the concerns of others with arguments and air-tight logic. as his former colleague on the d.c. circuit and our current chief justice john roberts said, any time judge garland disagrees, you know you are in a difficult area. at the same time, chief judge garland is more than just a brilliant legal mind, but he is someone who has a keen understanding that justice is about more than just abstract legal theory or a dusty case book.
his life experience, his experience in places like oklahoma city, informs his view that the law is more than an intellectual exercise. he understands the way it affects the daily reality of people's lives in a big, complicated democracy and in rapidly changing types. and throughout his jurisprudence runs a common thread, a dedication to protecting the basic rights of every american, a conviction that in a democracy, powerful voices must not be allowed to drown out the voices of everyday americans. to find someone with such a long career of public service, marked by complex and sensitive issues, to find someone who just about everyone not only respects, but genuinely likes, that is rare. that speaks to who merrick garland is, not just as a lawyer, but as a man.
people respect the way he treats others. his genuine courtesy and respect for his colleagues and those who come before his court. they admire his civic mindedness, mentoring clerks, throughout their careers, urging them to use their legal frame in their careers. he set an example by tutoring a student in north washington dc every year for 18 years. they are moved by his deep devotion to his family. lynn, his wife of nearly 30 years, and two daughters, becky and jesse. as a family they indulge their , love of hiking, skiing and canoeing and their love of america by visiting our national parks. people respect merrick's deep and abiding passion to protecting our most basic constitutional rights. is the passion i am told that
manifested itself at an early age. and one story is indicative of this. it is notable. as valedictorian of his high school class he had to deliver a , commencement address. the other student speaker spoke first and unleashed a firey critique of the vietnam war. hearing the controversy that might result several parents , decided to unplug the sound system and the rest of the student's speech was muffled. and merrick didn't necessarily agree with the tone of his , nor his's remarks choice of topic for that day, but stirred by a fellow student's voice was silent, he tossed aside his remarks and delivered on the spot an impromptu defense of our first amendment rights. it was the beginning of a lifelong career as a lawyer and a prosecutor and as a judge devoted to protecting the rights of others.
and he has done that work with decency and humanity and common sense and a common touch. and i'm proud that he will continue that work on our nation's highest court. i said i would take this process seriously, and i did. i chose a serious man, and an exemplary judge, merrick garland. over my seven years as president and in all of my conversations with senators from both parties in which i asked their views on qualified supreme court nominees and this includes the previous , two seats that i had to fill, the one name that has come up repeatedly from republicans and democrats alike is merrick garland. now i recognize that we have
, entered the political season or perhaps these days, it never ends. a political season that is even noisier and more volatile than usual. i know that republicans will point to democrats who made it hard for republican presidents to get their nominees confirmed. and they're not wrong about that. there's been politics involved in nominations in the past, although it should be pointed out that in each of those instances, democrats ultimately confirmed a nominee put forward by a republican president. i also know that because of justice scalia's outsized role on the court and in american law and the fact that americans are , closely divided on a number of issues before the court, it is tempting to make this confirmation process simply an extension of our divided politics.
the squabbling that is going on in the news every day. but to go down that path would be wrong. it would be a betrayal of our best traditions. and a betrayal of the vision of our founding documents. at a time when our politics are so polarized, at a time when norms and customs of political rhetoric and courtesy and comity are so often treated like they are disposable, this is precisely the time when we should play it straight and treat the process of appointing a supreme court justice with the seriousness and care that it deserves. because our supreme court really is unique. it is supposed to be above politics, it has to be. and it to stay that way.
-- it should stay that way. to suggest that someone is qualified and respected as merrick garland doesn't even deserve a hearing let alone an up-or-down vote to join an institution as important of our supreme court when 2/3 of our americans believe otherwise, that would be unprecedented. to suggest that someone who has served his country with honor and dignity, with a distinguished track record of delivering justice for the american people, might be treated as one republican leader stated, as a political pinata, that can't be right. tomorrow, judge garland will travel to the hill to begin meeting with senators one-on-one. i simply ask republicans in the senate to give him a fair hearing and then an up-or-down vote. if you don't, then it will not
only be an abdication of the senate's constitutional duty, it will indicate a process for nominating and confirming judges that is beyond repair. it will mean everything is subject to the most partisan of politics, everything. it will provoke an endless cycle of more tit-for-tat and it make impossible for any president , democrat or republican to , carry out their constitutional function. the reputation of the supreme court will inevitably suffer. faith in our justice system will inevitably suffer. and our democracy will ultimately suffer as well. i have fulfilled my constitutional duty.
now it's time for the senate to do theirs. presidents do not stop working in the final year of their term. neither should a senator. i know that tomorrow the senate will take a break and leave town on recess for two weeks. my earnest hope is that senators take that time to reflect the importance of this process to our democracy not what is , expedient, not what is happening at the moment. what does it mean for our institutions, for our common life? the stakes, the consequences and the seriousness of the job we all swore an oath to do. and when they return, i hope that they'll act in a bipartisan fashion. i hope they're fair. that's all. i hope they are fair.
as they did when they confirm ed merrick garland to the d.c. circuit. i ask that they confirm merrick garland now to the supreme court, so that he can take his seat in time to fully participate in its work for the american people this fall. he is the right man for the job. he deserves to be confirmed. i could not be prouder of the work that he has already done on behalf of the american people. he deserves our thanks and he deserves a fair hearing. and with that, i would like to invite judge garland to say a few words. [applause]
judge garland: thank you, mr. president. this is the greatest honor of my life, other than my wife agreeing to marry me 28 years ago. it's also the greatest gift i've ever received, and except, and there's a caveat, the birth of our daughters, jessie and becky. as my parents taught me by both words and deeds, a life of public service is as much a gift to the person who serves as it is to those he is serving. and for me there could be no , higher public service than serving as a member of the united states supreme court. my family deserves much of the credit for the path that led me here. my grandparents left the pale of settlement at the border of western europe and eastern europe in the early 1900's,
fleeing anti-semitism, and hoping to make a better life for their children in america. they settled in the midwest, eventually making their way to chicago. there, my father, who ran the smallest of small businesses from a room in our basement, took me with him as he made the rounds to his customers, always impressing upon me the importance of hard work and fair dealing. there, my mother headed the local pta and school board and directed a volunteer services agency all the while instilling in my sisters and me the understanding that service to the community is a responsibility above all others. even now my sisters honor that example by serving the children of their communities. i know my mother is watching this on television and crying
her eyes out. [laughter] so are my sisters who support me in every step i have ever taken. i only wish that my father were here to see this today. i also wish that we hadn't taught my older daughter to be so adventurous that she would be hiking in the mountains out of self-service range -- -- cell service range when the president called. [laughter] it was a sense of responsibility to serve the community instilled by my parents that led me to leave my law firm to become a line prosecutor in 1989. there, one of my first assignments was to assist in the prosecution of a violent gang that had come down to the district from new york, took over a public housing project and terrorized the residents. , the hardest job we faced was persuading mothers and grandmothers that if they testified, we would be able to keep them safe.
and convict the gang members. we succeeded only by convincing witnesses and victims that they could trust that the rule of law would prevail. years later, when i went to oklahoma city to investigate the bombing of a federal building, i saw up close the devastation that can happen when someone abandons the justice system as a way of resolving grievances and instead takes matters into his own hands. once again, i saw the importance of assuring victims and families that the justice system could work. we promised that we would find the perpetrators, that we would bring them to justice, and that we would do it in a way that honored the constitution. the people of oklahoma city gave us their trust, and we did everything we could to live up to it.
trust that justice will be done in our courts without prejudice or partisanship is what in large part distinguishes this country from others. people must be confident that a judge's decisions are determined by the law and only the law. for a judge to be worthy of such trust, he or she must be faithful to the constitution and to the statutes passed by the congress. he or she must put aside his personal views or preferences and follow the law, not make it. fidelity to the constitution and the law has been the cornerstone of my professional life. and it is the hallmark of the kind of judge i have tried to be for the past 18 years. if the senate sees fit to confirm me to the position for which i have been nominated today, i promise to continue on that course.
mr. president, it's a great privilege to be nominated by a fellow chicogoan. [laughter] i am grateful beyond words for the honor you have bestowed upon me. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] announcer: president obama announcing the nomination of u.s. appeals court chief judge merrick garland as his pick for the supreme court to fill the seat of the late antonin scalia a.
plenty of reaction as you might expect on capitol hill today as we watched some of the senate and congressional democrats who were on hand for the announcement. several members of the senate judiciary committee at the white house, and on your left there, senate minority leader harry reid. lots of reaction on the hill today. we heard from mitch mcconnell, who says they will not be any consideration of the nomination by the dishes syrian committee or the senate -- nomination by the judiciary committee or the senate. more on that in a few minutes, but now your chance to weigh in if the senate should consider the supreme court nominee. chief judge merrick garland, chief judge of the u.s. court of appeals d.c. circuit. he was appointed to the bench by president bill clinton, and he is 63 years old, went to harvard law school and clerked for justice william brennan at the
supreme court. again, chief judge merrick garland. he also was involved in the citycution of the oklahoma bombers some years back. you are the president referred to that. again, your chance to weigh in now, should the senate considered the supreme court nominee? the numbers are on your screen. republicans, all others. c-span, orat us at leave a comment on the facebook page. randy joins us from arlington, minnesota online for democrats. that evening. good evening, i would like to support judge merrick garland after hearing him speak today. what could we ask for more? andalked about bipartisan,
this is truly someone we can see that would do a fantastic job. it is time to put down the political strife and put people in office that need to be there for everyone. i do for the opportunity to speak. host: thank you. jim in florida, public and caller. caller: i do not believe the supreme court should consider this. i think it to be up to the next president. thank you. host: fair enough, short and sweet. dennis from huntsville, texas. on the line for independence. should the senate consider the supreme court nominee? becauseyes, they should until the new president comes into office, we still have a constitutional duty. so does the senate too. to say we are not going to work until a new president comes in, that is not, that is not constitutional. thank you.
thank you for calling. republicans in the senate, the leader of the republicans, mitch mcconnell, majority leader, contending that it should be up , ande voters in november that the senate should hold off on any consideration of a supreme court nominee until a new president is at least elected. your thoughts, ian? in new york. caller: i think that the new judge, they should proceed with his nomination. host: why? caller: because the president has done his duty as a sitting president. is, why the what it republicans are so vindictive towards president obama. ever since they realize that he is black, and is that fair?
arerepublicans think they such great christians, and if i read my bible well, it tells me that you should turn the other cheek. about whatrrecting presence -- vice president biden said years ago. but then they do not follow that pursuit, because what he said, if they are christian, he says turn the other cheek. and they are so vindictive. i don't know how they can sleep at night. host: thank you for the call. a reminder to all colors, turn your tv down and you will have the feedback problem. as we mentioned, a lot of comments from members of congress, members of the judiciary committee, and those comments have continued to come in on twitter. a couple of recent ones in the last hour or so, this one from republican,johnson,
a single supreme court nominee conflates the courts balance, putting fundamental rights at risk. give american voters of voice on such change. on the other hand, debbie wasserman schultz, who has the dnc, every supreme court nominee has had a senate hearing or vote since, wait for it, 1875. senate gop, just do your job. that from the head of the head of the democratic committee. and now st. petersburg, florida. caller: hi. host: should the senate consider the supreme court nominee? caller: i am in my 80's, and i -- don't recall ever having seen a candidate more qualified, number one. politicize theto ipreme court is just beyond think, my party's vision.
, i do like he is going to lean right or left. this guy is going to do the right thing. i think we need a little more of that on the supreme court. let's not politicize it. host: thank you for calling. indian south carolina. line for independence. caller: yes, i think that you consider the nominee. that is high school basics. the supreme court and the whole judicial branch should not be directly political. ,t is wrong with they are doing it is not with the founding fathers would have wanted. i am sad to see it. host: go next to new mexico, line for democrats, dorothy with us. caller: thank you. in, not wish to see him put and i will tell you why. i am a democrat, and it is crossing over.
i don't like what clinton did at all. and i cannot back to them. host: well, let me ask you this. an obama nomination. how do you clinch the clintons with that -- connect the clintons with that? democrats. obama is a rotten president, i am sorry to tell you that, which is why i am glad to cross over. i will vote for whatever the republican or the independent is. i will not vote democratic anymore. host: ok. thank you for calling, zach on the republican line, portland, maine. caller: thank you, i think the major party line voting is absurd. previous colors i have agreed with and others i have disagreed with. i definitely think we only to the president to honor the nomination that he has made.
after all, he is the president. my fear is that in trying to block him, this is the middle of march, the election is early november. , because whenism i talked to folks, and they say obama is a bad president, a lot of these folks -- can they give us a reason why? are they political enough to give us a reason why? but i fear it is a major party line reaction. host: jim in summerville, south carolina. what do you think of the senate picking up this nomination? should it do so? caller: yes. host: why? we lost to jim. or maybe stage fright. charles in san francisco, california. line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i have been out here 50
years, originally from maine. i am no democrat. -- now a democrat. to think they could do something to block this nomination, i was hoping it was going to be a woman myself, another woman. after listening to his qualifications on the second-highest court and seeing , this is arson tragedy. it is bad enough they stole the 2000 election in the supreme court, but to do this is just blasphemy. the president is right. if you are going to hold this thing against a president because he is black, and i heard that woman speak and i couldn't believe it that she was democrat saying such things. it is inconceivable about how low can you slip? our country right now is in
turmoil because of this situation of politics before government. we have suffered a depression that was caused by the republicans, and now they want to do this. they want to destroy the supreme court. , and is not nominated now isn't given at least a chance to ,ppear and be up and down vote we won't have a supreme court justice for almost a year and a half. host: thanks for calling. a couple of tweets have come in in the last little bit from some of our viewers. keith writes, if hillary wins in november, the senate can confirm him quickly and for she takes office. they win either way. this from thomas that says the unprecedented political obstruction on ted cruz shot down scale. do your job. they mention orrin hatch and chuck grassley, who chaired the senate judiciary committee.
they would either as possibility for vetting the supreme court nominations by the president. reluctant color now, doug in el dorado, kansas. go ahead. -- sorry aboutis that. a couple of points. number one, the way that established republicans have been acting, i doubt they will have the strength or the guts to go forward with keeping him from getting a vote on the floor. think i was a little disappointed that barack hussein guy. nominated a white i thought he should have named, nominated either a black person or a woman.
he must be so racist. obama is a racist. host: all right, let's go to main on the republican line. francis. caller: i would like to not have obama come out or try to appoint , because court justice obama himself, in my opinion and media,have read from the obama is not american citizen. and a supreme court justice have to investigate obama, and they never did. he is not american citizen. he was born in kenya, africa.
we will move on from that. not the topic of this segment of phone calls. now we have dave. which of senate consider the supreme court nominee? caller: yes, i think they should because it says the president should pick the nominee for the supreme court. it doesn't say anything anywhere that the voters picked for it, and that is letting the voters picked. the voters are not given the right to pick supreme court justice. so yes, they should vote. host: all right, thanks dave. that will do it for your phone calls. we get another chance to weigh in on washington journal tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern your time here on c-span. and now reaction from capitol hill.
we will take you to a number of senators who have remarks on the floor today shortly after the president's announcement of the nomination of chief judge merrick garland to the supreme court. we will start with the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. the nextconnell: justice good fundamentally alter the next direction of the supreme court and have a profound impact on our country. so of course, the american people should have a say in the courts direction. it is a president constitutional right to nominate, and it is the right toconstitutional act as a check on a president and withhold its consent. as chairman grassley and i declared weeks ago and reiterated personally to president obama, the senate will continue to observe the biden rule. so that the american people have
a voice in this momentous decision. the american people may well elect a person who decides to nominate judge garland for senate consideration. the next president may also nominate somebody very different. either way, our view is this. give the people a voice in filling this vacancy. let me remind colleagues of what vice president biden said when he was chairman of the judiciary committee here in the senate. here's what he said. it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what is fair to the nominee, he said, and is central
to the process. otherwise, it seems to me, chairman biden went on, we will be in deep trouble as an institution. others may fret, he said, that this approach would leave the court with only eight members for some time. but as i see it, chairman biden said, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or cases that would divide the justices 4-4, are quite minor. compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight no matter how good a person is nominated by the president. chairman joe biden. consider that last part. senator biden said that the cost of the nation would be too great no matter who the president nominates.
president obama and his allies may now try to pretend this disagreement is about a person. but as i just noted his own vice , president made it clear it's not. the biden rule reminds us that the decision the senate announced weeks ago remains about a principle and not a person. about a principle and not a person. it seems clear that president obama made this nomination not, not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election. which is the type of thing then senate judiciary committee chairman biden was concerned about. the exact thing chairman biden was concerned about. the biden rule underlines what the president has done with this nomination would be unfair to any nominee and more importantly
, the rule warns of the great cost the president's action could carry for our nation. americans are certain to hear a lot of rhetoric from the other side in the coming days. but here are the facts they should keep in mind. the current democratic leader said the senate is not a rubber stamp. and he noted that the constitution does not require the senate to give presidential nominees a vote. that's the current democratic leader. the incoming democratic leader did not even wait until the final year of george w. bush's term to essentially tell the senate not, he said, not to consider any supreme court nominee the president sent. the biden rule supports what the senate is doing today. underlining that what we are talking about is a principle and
not a person. so here's our view. instead of spending more time debating an issue where we can't agree, let's keep working to the issues -- address address the issues where we can. we just passed critical bipartisan legislation to help address the heroin and prescription opioid crisis in our country. let's build on that success. let's keep working together to get our economy moving again. and make our country safer. rather than endlessly debating an issue where we don't agree. as we continue working on issues like these, the american people are perfectly capable of having their say, their say on this issue. so let's give them a voice. let's let the american people decide. the senate will appropriately
revisit the matter what it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates. whoever that might be. host: this morning, president obama nominated his choice to fill the vacancy created by the justice antonin scalia. the president exercises support under the constitution to nominate somebody to this vacancy. but that same constitution reserves to the united states senate and the united states senate alone the right to either grant or withhold consent to that nominee. it is the same constitution. you can't argue that the president somehow has an unquestioned right to see his nominee rubberstamped by the senate and still show fidelity the same passages
and that gives him the authority to make that nomination. constitution that gives them the authority to make that nomination. this president will not fill this vacancy. the senate will not confirm this nominee to this vacancy. and in so doing so, we are following the same rule work that democrats have advocated for in the past. it can't be that one senate rules apply to a democratic resident and a second set of rules apply when there is a republican president. this isn't just about speculating what democrats might do, or the shoe on the other foot if we had a republican president, because they have told us what they would do. they have done this since 1992, and in many ways they of caps on their promise. -- they have cap their promise. justice scalia served for 30 years on the united states supreme court.
so the next justice could well change the ideological makeup and the balance of the supreme court for a generation to calm -- to come and fundamentally america as we know it. at this critical juncture in our nations history, and particular regard to the judiciary in the highest court of the land, the american people deserve a chance to have a say in the selection of the next lifetime appointment to the supreme court, and the only way to empower the american people and ensure they have that voice is for the next president to fill the nomination created by this vacancy. i have heard some people say, well we had that election in 2012, when president obama was elected, but i would say you are half right. wheels had another election in 2014, where the american people give republicans the majority of the united states senate,
because they saw what happened when this president that didn't have any checks and balances. we saw this during the beginning of his term of office when obamacare was passed by a truly partisan vote. we saw it when dr. frank was passed, again by an overwhelmingly partisan vote. so the american people have said, to president obama in 2014, we want an effective check on presidential power. that is what the american people got. so you can't just look at one side of the equation, the president's authority under the constitution. and in fact, the president was reelected in 2012, you have to look at what happened in 2014 and the constitutional prerogative of the united states senate either to grant or to withhold the nomination. a confirmation.
write -- senator hatch: our rights to speak about the untimely death of justice antonin scalia. president obama has exercised merrickr to nominate garland. the constitution gives to the andte the right to consent, it is time for the senate to do its job. the soundbite, do your job, is and fits inble, very large letters on a charge that democratic senators bring to this floor. words however have so few been so misleading for so many. this cliche banks that does not answer the most important question, what is the senate job regarding the scalia vacancy?
they say do as we say now, not as we did then. that would be more honest. that would help to be persuaded by it. they said the constitution provides the job description, requiring a prompt judiciary committee in a timely floor vote. there may be a constitution somewhere that says such a thing , but certainly not in our constitution. the constitution of the united states. but each of us has sworn in on oath to protect and defend, and i'm not surprised liberals would use a made up, fictional, constitution to pursue their political goals. after all, their favorite judges do the same thing. since the time he was a senator, from the time he was a senator serving in this body, president obama has said judges decide cases based on personal empathy and poor concerns -- core
concerns and vision of how the world works. if that was the case, anyone could be a supreme court justice. he has nominated men and women who believes justices change the constitution's meaning like with cultural understanding. and evolving social norms. give me a break. seeng unwritten things they , the kind of judges liberals favor say unwritten things in our written constitution. they discover things in the lines about the written charter that come not from those who drafted it and ratified the constitution, not the american people, not even from the judges own, but from the judges own imagination. if the constitution that we have, the one fellow citizens can read, if it serves them,
then activist judges will use it. if not then, activist judges will make up a new constitution that is more useful to their purposes. america's founders drafted a system of government with limits, including a defied -- defined rule for unelected judges. the supreme court observed in the famous case of marbury versus madison that the constitution is written down so these limits will be neither mistaken nor forgotten and is intended to govern clerks and legislatures. favordges in the liberals reject those limits. they look at written law such as the constitution such as a starting point that words without any real meaning. they are often support and defend the constitution that is .eally to defend themselves in the long run, their constitution is one of their own making.
i am really surprised that democrats and their allies turned to a fictional constitution when prompting the senate to do it job. that constitution simply does not exist. leads foronstitution the president in the senate, the decision about how do exercise their respective powers in the appointment process. what is the senate's job regarding the cecelia -- the scalia vacancy? it is to exercise and consent power under the circumstances we face today. we are not without guidance in exercise our to power regarding's justice scalia. we can look at president. . hardly -- precedent it hardly takes ally to show
that a precedent is more situational what was before. comparing apples and rocks, let's just say it is a matter of common sense. fictional claims offered in recent days suggest that some of the lawyers among us could benefit from even more common sense. over the years, senators consider dominations in different ways at different times depending on the circumstances. the current circumstances. the senate has never, never confirmed a nominee to the supreme court, to a supreme court vacancy that "this late in president ind office. this is only the third of vacancy in nearly a century to occur after the american people had already started voting in a presidential election.
and in the previous two instances in 1956 and 1965, excuse me, 1968, the senate did not confirm a nominee until the following year. and the only time, the only time the senate has ever confirmed a nominee supreme court vacancy, created after voting began in a presidential election year, was in 1916. that vacancy arose only because chief justice charles evans hughes resigned his seat on the court to run against incumbent president woodrow wilson. there was also another president that has received little attention but is worth considering. president john quincy adams nominated john clinton in the supreme court in december 1828. after andrew jackson won the presidential election. voteenate by voice
rejected an amendment to a resolution regarding that clinton the nomination they discussed this vote and concluded that they declined to endorse the principle, the practice to proceed to a final vote on every nomination. thelieve that precedents mean that the senate must decide for itself in each situation. another guidance. in 1992, another presidential election year during a divided government, then judiciary
committee chairman joseph biden, our vice president, i drifted this. and if a supreme court vacancy that it that year, should be deferred until the election season is over. and there is the interview with the washington post. you can read it here. if someone steps down, i would highly recommend the president .ot name someone if the president did send someone up, i would also seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee. chairman biden also explained this recommendation. he said that any election-year nominee would be caught up in a